Print & transformation to literacy
Undoubtedly, the print is the revolution of humanity that pushes the boundaries of knowledge furthermore. This development has opened a door to generate more ideas consistently and to reshape the new literate world into genres and even more complex divisions. Print has preserved information and has become the precursor of modern technology.
Bolter (2001) has described the process of development as a continuum that starts with the print and later transforms into a digital form (p.2). Therefore, print revolution has a major role in transforming learning from traditional to eLearning. Most of this transformation according to Bolter (2001) is a progressive sign of improvement rather than a negative one. On the other hand, Ong (1982) argued that writing has affected thought and expression as well (p.117). The mass production, also, has improved the literacy culture. I argue that capitalism, in the same direction, has pushed towards digital forms as their material is cheaper and the financial revenue is high. Even though, capitalism transformed words into a commodity under copy rights law. According to Bolter (2001), the contents of the writing would be affected by the form it is printed such as papers or digital prints (p. 6). Ong contended that print has a role in “quantification of knowledge” (p. 130), it improves languages by producing many dictionaries, has a major role in creating personal ownership and thus in my opinion has greatly impacted creativity of ideas and in synthesizing many works in a creative way. This change in the inner mechanism of writing has had a major effect on improving orality. Bolter argues that the characteristic of recent books is the unity and homogeneity; however, I find that the digital form of writing is heading in further direction. One example is Wikipedia with hyperlinks to different topics and ideas. Therefore, unity and homogeneity, in my opinion, are not the trend in the new digital culture of writing.
Bolter (2001) has questioned the power of the word processor. He mentioned its functionality as a printer with ink and with the ability to scroll pages; he contended that it, “does not treat the text as a network of verbal ideas” (p. 9). According to Glen (2015),“word processors in 2015 are very different” (p.112), because it gives more flexibility and holistic visions of the document that is being written. I agree that the word processors and other forms of technology cannot shape our ideas, otherwise, this technology should be addressed as a co-author of any work we generate and the authenticity of our writing would be questionable. Ong (1982) has linked the print history with the change of the readers’ behaviour. He argued that there is a strong link between words, behaviour and the inner perception of the reader. While writing brings the words, according to Ong (1982), from the orality to visual space; print fixes these words in the visual space.
Finally, I agree with Ong that print has raised the criticism concept that lead to a formalization of texts (p.133) which elaborate that, “what is inside the text and the mind is a complete unit, self-contained in its silent inner logic” that forms the domination of the internal perception (p. 150). However, I find that criticism may be a factor in minimising the formal writing productivity. But these days, with the revolution of blogs and the internet, we find a mass production in writing as a space to represent the ideas as a symbol of individual expression, social interactivity, and liberation.
Bassam
References
Glenn, A. (2015). The relationships of word processing in academic work and student achievement scores on the national assessment of educational progress
Bolter, Jay David. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print [2nd edition]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Ong, Walter. (1982.) Orality and Literacy. Chapters 5 and 6 (pp. 117-155)
Hi Bassam,
“Bolter argues that the characteristic of recent books is the unity and homogeneity; however, I find that the digital form of writing is heading in further direction.”
I am not sure if I would represent Wikipedia as a book, but I see your point, one example is the Social Book, and here’s another example.
Best,